It is common by states to deny asylum for asylum-seekers with the argument that the applicant could find protection within their own country of residence instead of receiving international protection. This is called internal protection alternative (IPA). This research is a comparative case study and aims to explore and compare two neighbouring countries, Sweden and Norway, on how their immigration authorities differ in their assessment on both the security situation and IPA in Afghanistan. Furthermore, this thesis aims to compare the Swedish and Norwegian immigration authorities with international laws, agreements and guidelines which, therefore, is the conceptional framework for this research. This study concludes that IPA is not mentioned in the 1951 Refugee Convention and that there are no clear directives on how to apply it. States tend to interpret the already existing laws and guidelines in their own way. The result of this is that there are differences between states practice and the consequence could be that asylum-seekers could receive different assessments and decisions from different countries. This research is, therefore, highly relevant from a humanitarian- and academia perspective as it highlights differences in national practice which is crucial since these differences will affect the refugee situation of individuals and the possibility of obtaining asylum.